Art, indeed, must create as well as copy. As Victor Cousin well says, "The
ideal without the real lacks life; but the real without the ideal lacks
pure beauty. Both need to unite; to join hands and enter into alliance. In
this way the best work may be achieved. Thus beauty is an absolute idea,
and not a mere copy of imperfect Nature."
The grouping of the picture is of course of the utmost importance. Sir
Joshua Reynolds gives two remarkable cases to show how much any given
figure in a picture is affected by its surroundings. Tintoret in one of
his pictures has taken the Samson of Michael Angelo, put an eagle under
him, placed thunder and lightning in his right hand instead of the jawbone
of an ass, and thus turned him into a Jupiter. The second instance is even
more striking. Titian has copied the figure in the vault of the Sistine
Chapel which represents the Deity dividing light from darkness, and has
introduced it into his picture of the battle of Cadore, to represent a
general falling from his horse.
We must remember that so far as the eye is concerned, the object of the
artist is to train, not to deceive, and that his higher function has
reference rather to the mind than to the eye.
No doubt
"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess." [2]
But all is not gold that glitters, flowers are not all arrayed like the
lily, and there is room for selection as well as representation.
"The true, the good, and the beautiful," says Cousin, "are but forms of
the infinite: what then do we really love in truth, beauty, and virtue? We
love the infinite himself. The love of the infinite substance is hidden
under the love of its forms. It is so truly the infinite which charms in
the true, the good, and the beautiful, that its manifestations alone do
not suffice. The artist is dissatisfied at the sight even of his greatest
works; he aspires still higher."
It is indeed sometimes objected that Landscape painting is not true to
nature; but we must ask, What is truth? Is the object to produce the same
impression on the mind as that created by the scene itself? If so, let any
one try to draw from memory a group of mountains, and he will probably
find that in the impression produced on his mind the mountains are loftier
and steeper, the valleys deeper and narrower, than in the actual reality.
A drawing, then, which was literally exact would not be true, in the sense
of conveying the same impression as Nature herself.
In fact, Art, says Goethe, is called Art simply because it is not Nature.
It is not sufficient for the artist to choose beautiful scenery, and
delineate it with accuracy. He must not be a mere copyist. Something
higher and more subtle is required. He must create, or at any rate
interpret, as well as copy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account